20110682 Ver 2_Restoration Information_20120727

Partners
for �
iii � ii for
and '
.s
Wildlife
July 13, 2012
To: Roberto Scheller, Senior Environmental Specialist, Division of Water Quality,
NC DENR
bi
From: David Byrd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program
Subject: Wetland Management Plan for South Martha Washington Hydrology
Restoration Project, DWQ Permit #11 -0682
Dear Mr. Scheller,
Enclosed is the wetland manageme_Case number 21reference site, for the South Martha
Washington Ditch hydrology restoration project in Dismal Swamp State Park in Camden
County, North Carolina, as well as a portions of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife
refuge in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. Included in the plan is a discussion of the hydrology
and plant stress monitoring integral to the plan. Due to the lack of accurate elevation data
within the affected ditches and forested blocks proposed for restoration, the plan is designed as
an adaptive management plan. Data provided on groundwater hydrology and plant response to
changes in groundwater elevation will be assessed and provide the basis for modifications in
water control at these structures, if necessary. These assessments will also provide the park and
refuge managers with the groundwater hydrology data necessary to assess the need for further
water control within the study area.
Due to ongoing issues with our office phone system, please contact me on my cell phone at
(757) 472 -2473 or via e-mail at david—[e-mail] if you have questions.
RECEIVED
JUL 16 2012
DWQ-WARO

Introduction
This wetland management plan is submitted in accordance with special conditions 8 and 9 of
North Carolina, Department of Environment and Natural Resoueces, Division of Water Quality
permit number 11 -0682, issued to the Dvision of Parks and Recreation on September 6, 2011 for
the South Martha Washington Ditch Hydrology Restoration Project.
Background
The project is located in northeastern North Carolina and southern Virginia (Figure 1). The
project area (Figure 2) encompassed by this wetland management plan is located within a
portion of the historic Dismal Swamp, which once covered as much as 1,000,000 acres of land in
southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina. Since the 1600's, the swamp has been
altered through clearing, ditching and draining for agricultural, commercial and residential
purposes. It is estimated that only 210,000 acres of the original Dismal Swamp remains, most of
which is contained within Dismal Swamp State Park (DSSP) and the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge (GDSNWR), and is altered through a network of ditches (Figure 3).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) acquired approximately 49,000 acres from Union
Camp Corporation and an additional 26,000 acres from Weyerhauser Corporation through The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) to form the core of the GDSNWR, containing land in the cities of
Chesapeake and Suffolk and portions of Camden and Pasquotank counties in North Carolina.
The refuge currently comprises 111,000 acres. DSSP, located immediately south and east of
r__ --- rrwrry '--
GDSNWR, contains 14,432 acres ac- -��-- 1974. GDSNWR staff has managed
Case number 23.
water levels in the refuge since its fVniiauun in 7 4 and since 1990, has managed their network
of drainage ditches and water controls structures under the Marsh and Water Management Plan
(USFWS 1990). GDSNWR staff also manages several water control structures in the northern
section of DSSP, under an existing agreement. The GDSNWR staff is currently working on a
hydrology management plans, due out in 2013. DSSP intends to develop a hydrology
management plan, though the time frame for its development is currently undetermined.
The project area within DSSP and GDSNWR is composed of several natural communities.
These can all be broadly classified under organic flat wetlands, characterized by relative low
topographic relief with organic soils 16 or more inches thick at or near the surface and hydrology
characterized by runoff horizontally in all directions. These natural communities include Non -
Riverine Swamp Forest, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest dominated by Atlantic white
cedar (Chaemacyparis thyioides), and Pine Flats /Pond Pine Woodland, dominated by pond pine
(Pinus serotina), which comprises the majority of the area. The hydrology of Non - Riverine
Swamp Forest is characterized by seasonally or frequently saturated or shallowly flooded by a
high water table. Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forests are characterized by intermittently or
seasonally saturated hydrologic conditions. Pine Flats /Pond Pine Woodlands are characterized
by a temporarily flooded or saturated hydrologic regime. The water table drops to underlying
mineral sediment during the dry season (Schafale and Weakely 1990). Natural Resource
Heritage Areas also occur within the project area. The Dismal Swamp Pocosin Resource
Heritage Area is located in the southwest section and the Dismal Swamp White Cedar Resource
Heritage Area is located in the northwest section of the project area (Figure 4).

Page 3
The wetlands within the project area have been classified by other methods, including the
Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), North Carolina Department of Water Quality, and
North Carolina Department of Coastal Management. Within the project area, the areas within
the GDSNWR have been classified under NWI (Figure 5) as palustrine scrub shrub (PSS) or
palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands, with further designations based on dominant vegetation type
such as broad - leaved deciduous (01) or needle - leaved evergreen (04). The hydrologic modifier
for all of the wetland types in the GDSNWR section of the project area is seasonally flooded (C).
The definition for this modifier is surface water is present for extended periods especially early
in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years (Cowardin,
et. al. 1979).. No NWI mapping is available for DSSP, though the state of North Carolina has
developed a wetland mapping system that has categorized wetlands within the project area. The
majority of wetlands within the DSSP portion of the project area are defined as Pine Flat
(wetland type 10). This wetland type contains the community classified by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program as Pond Pine Woodland (LeGrand, 1994).. Areas along the western
and eastern boundaries of the project area, as well as an area contained with the block bounded
by Laurel and Myrtle ditches, are defined as Drained Depressional Swamp Forest (wetland type
27). This wetland type, in addition to Pond Pine Woodland contained the community classified
by North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as High Pocosin (LeGrand, 1994). Small areas of
Depressional Swamp Forest (wetland type 7) are found in the southwest quadrant of the project
area (Figure 6). The Dismal Swamp White Cedar and Dismal Swamp Pocosin Heritage Areas
and the Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest habitat are primarily located in the Depressional
Swamp Forest (Figure 4).
These communities have been signif­.antiv alrPrPd hv rapt human activities, including logging,
ditching (LeGrand 1994). These disCase_number 241itching, have resulted in the loss of up
to three feet of organic soil through subsidence and oxidation. Two recent large wildfires burned
up to four feet of drained organic soil, resulting in the loss of significant stands of Atlantic white
cedar and other forested areas in GDSNWR. The drained condition of the soils, in conjunction
with past logging practices have led to the encroachment of opportunistic species such as red
maple (Ater rubrum), which has become a dominant species in all of these natural communities,
resulting in shifts in community type (LeGrand 1994, Laing 2011). Discussions with Dr. Rob
Atkinson from Christopher Newport University (CNU) and Gary Speiran from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) indicated that the prevalence of red maple, a broad- leaved deciduous
species, may also contribute to an enhanced transpiration rate and more rapid water table decline
.in the spring, as compared to the needle - leaved evergreens Atlantic white cedar and pond and
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and the needle - leaved deciduous bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
that historically dominated these natural communities (R. Atkinson, CNU, pers. comm. 2011, G.
Speiran, USGS, pers. comm. 2011). LeGrand (2000) also indicated that DSSP is a significant
site because of its large acreage of wetland forests. Without active management such as raising
water levels in the swamp and initiating controlled burning, the cedar and pine dominated natural
areas will be replaced by red maple, sweetgum and tuliptree. A brief explanation of the past
and present water management activities within GDSNWR and DSSP would provide some
background for this plan.

Page 4
Water Management
Historic
Within the historic Dismal Swamp, water management has historically consisted of the
construction of ditches with the intent of draining land for forestry and agricultural purposes, as
well as to provide water for navigation in the Dismal Swamp Canal. This effort extends back to
the eighteenth century, when George Washington and a group of investors attempted to drain and
clear portions of the swamp for agriculture and the construction of the Dismal, Swamp Canal and
extended up until the early 1970's, when the land was purchased for protection by the Nature
Conservancy and subsequently transferred to the Service and the North Carolina Department of
Parks and Recreation (NCDENR). Water control structures, typically stoplog controlled half
moon risers, were also used by timber companies, prior to acquisition by the state and Federal
governments. Many of these structures have either been repaired or replaced, though some have
been abandoned, including one located adjacent to the proposed southern water control structure
on South Martha Washington Ditch.
Existing
Water control structures, providing management of water levels within the historic Great Dismal
Swamp, have been primarily limited to that portion within the current boundaries of the
GDSNWR. A total of 43 structures are located within the GDSNWR and DSSP, 31 of which
have been repaired, replaced or installed since CTT)RNWR /DSSP establishment. These structures
are currently functioning to manage Case number 25sma1 Swamp (Figure 7). Several are
located on DSSP property and are managed by the GDSNWR staff through an agreement with
DSSP. These include water control structures at Corapeake and Western Boundary and
Corapeake and Laurel ditches, located near the northwestern edge of the park. Other water
control structures that the GDSNWR staff currently manages that are on the border between
GDSNWR and DSSP lands are the located at Cross Canal and Forest Line Ditch at the southwest
corner of DSSP property and three structures along Bull Boulevard Ditch at the southern edge of
park property. GDSNWR staff has managed this network of water controls structures under the
Marsh and Water Management Plan since 1990 (Service 1990). The goals of this plan are, in
brief, reduce water channelized from swamp by installing and rehabilitating water control
structures to replicate natural flow regimes by installing cross -flow culverts under roads,
maintain water levels to enhance hydrologic conditions for specific habitat types, and to support
off - refuge water management activities, where possible. GDSNWR staff is currently working on
an updated hydrology management plans, tentatively due out in 2013.
Water management within the DSSP and GDSNWR has consisted of releasing water during the
high outflow period of winter to spring and retaining it during the summer through fall. Due to
land use changes outside of the GDSNWR, such as housing development, clearing, ditching and
drain tiling for agricultural production, the volume and rate of surface water inflow into the
GDSNWR has increased significantly. Without releasing this excess surface water, it would
overtop water control structures and the existing road network, resulting in damage to both.
After leaf emergence in early spring, transpiration rates increase significantly and coupled with

Page 5
the increasing evaporation rates, resulting in decreasing outflows to the ditches. Additional
stoplogs or boards are then placed in the structures to maintain water levels in the ditches and
groundwater elevation in the blocks much as possible during the summer through fall. Water
level monitoring with the GDSNWR and the northern section of DSSP has until recently
consisted of recording water elevations at staff gauges located at selected water control
structures and maintaining datalogging water level monitors in targeted locations. The
GDSNWR and DSSP also benefits from a USFWS hydrologist now working at GDSNWR, who
has collaborated with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct more intensive
groundwater monitoring in the southeastern GDSNWR and northernmost DSSP.
There are no water control structures with Kim Saunders Ditch, the eastern end of Corapeake
Ditch or the sections of Cross Canal and South Martha Washington Ditch that cross through
DSSP. Consequently, the ability to manage water levels within the interior of DSSP does not
exist. These ditches drain a significant portion of DSSP and prevent or restrict the ability of the
DSSP staff to undertake successful protection and restoration of the natural heritage
communities, including maintaining natural hydrologic regimes and minimizing the threat of
wildfires that have irreparably damaged portions of the Peatland Atlantic White Cedar, Pond
Pine Woodland and Non - Riverine Swamp Forest communities in the GDSNWR in the South
One Fire in 2008 and Lateral West Fire in 2011 northwest of DSSP.
Proposed/Future
The GDSNWR is currently working on a water management plan that is anticipated to be
completed in 2013. A habitat manage„ nP„ t nlan iq PXnented to be completed in 2012. DSSP
currently has no formal water managCase number__26anticipated that the monitoring and
assessment information derived through this wetland management plan will provide a basis for
the development of hydrology and wetland management plans.
This current plan incorporates the installation of two water control structures (the second or
southernmost structure contingent upon securing adequate funding) and 36 monitoring wells in
order to assess pre and post control effects on the groundwater level within the state park. The
wells will consist of both automatic datalogging wells (15) and tapedown or manually recorded
wells (21). All of the proposed automated wells and 18 of these the manually recorded wells are
located in DSSP. These wells will complement the existing well monitoring network presently
established north of DSSP in the GDSNWR.
Due to the lack of existing accurate elevation data for the ditches and forested areas proposed for
restoration/enhancement, the water control structures will initially be installed without placing
any stoplogs within the structures, allowing for unrestricted flow within the ditches. Water flow
will continue unregulated through the water control structure(s) for one year post construction to
provide pre - hydrology restoration monitoring of existing groundwater conditions. One year post
construction or after one complete growing season, stoplogs will be installed in the structures to
the design elevations, as indicated in the permit application and plans. Hydrology will be
continue to be monitored within each of the ditches and along transects within the forested
between blocks where hydrology is expected to be restored and enhanced for a minimum of five
years. As additional funding becomes available, additional wells may be installed to supplement

Page 6
those previously installed, affording a more complete view of existing groundwater hydrology.
Water and wetland management is proposed to be adaptive. strategy, based on the monitored
groundwater levels, as has been the case with the existing water control structures and habitat
management in the GDSNWR.
The goals of this wetland management plan, as indicated below, are to restore hydrology to
restore pre - disturbance hydrologic conditions as much as is practicable thus reducing or
eliminating organic soil loss and wildfire threat, creating the conditions to restore the natural
communities that are present within the project area to determine where additional water control
may be necessary to achieve these overall goals
Goals
Develop water control within South Martha Washington Ditch and to the maximum
extent, those ditches which drain into South Martha Washington Ditch.
2. Reduce or eliminate artificial drainage from the forested areas directly adjacent to South
Martha Washington Ditch and adjacent ditches.
I Utilize the water control structures to adjust water levels to mimic the hydroperiods of the
natural communities in the DSSP and GDSNWR to the extent possible, including Pond
Pine Woodland, Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest and Non - Riverine Swamp Forest.
4. Assess existing and future well mnnitnri„Q Ants tn determine the need and placement of
future water control structurc(;ase n 2 umber _ )re hydrology to those areas not
exhibiting ground water level and durations sufficient to maintain and restore natural
communities.
5. Monitor targeted natural community types within restoration area, using adaptive
management to provide contingencies related to extraordinary precipitation events,
potential adverse effects on road substrates, or other issues that may affect
DSSP /GDSNWR management.
Proposed Monitoring
Hydrology Monitoring
The GDSNWR staff, in conjunction with USGS staff, has been instituting a well monitoring as
funding is available for areas of the GDSNWR. These locations are focused on the southeast
area of the GDSNWR, north of the boundary with the DSSP. These wells are comprised of
satellite accessed, direct (personnel) accessed datalogging and manually read (tapedown) wells.
These are shown on the map indicating existing and proposed. monitoring well locations (Figure .
8).

Page 7
Additional hydrology monitoring wells will be installed within the project area in conjunction
with this plan, which will allow the DSSP and GDSNWR staff to monitor the restoration of
hydrology within the proposed restoration area (Figure 9). The monitoring wells will be
installed in the configuration indicated in Figure 10.
CNU students and staff, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Atkinson Director of the Center for
Wetland Conservation, will be conducting the hydrology monitoring on a subset of the wells on a
monthly basis. North Carolina State University students, under the supervision of Kris Bass,
P.E., will monitor the remaining wells within DSSP. USFWS, USGS, and NCDENR staff will
assist with installation and monitoring. Wells will be installed in accordance with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program Technical Note Installing
Monitoring Wells /Piezometers in Wetlands (Sprecher 2000).
Two data loggers (2 meter) will be located within South Martha Washington Ditch upgradient
(above) each of the structures to monitor water level within the ditch. Additional 1 meter wells
will be installed at varying intervals (100, 200, 300 feet and center of wooded block) from South
Martha Washington and other ditches to monitor groundwater levels within 1 meter of the
surface. Wells will consist of Remote Data System, In -Situ and Campbell Scientific data
loggers, placed 100 feet from the ditch and the center of the "blocks" and visually read wells,
which will be placed between the datalogging wells at 200 and 300 feet from the ditches. The
Remote Data System wells are Ecotone WM water level instruments (2 meter, 80 inch wells for
South Martha Washington Ditch and 1 meter 40 inch wells for all other locations. Wells
utilizing Campbell Scientific and In -Situ datalogging equipment can be individually sized using
data cable to fit the depth of the specif t- ­­11 V;c„n»hr monitored wells will be calibrated to
datalogging wells. Wells will be re Case number µ28J once a month and reports will be
prepared on an annual basis for submission to the Federal and state regulatory agencies.
Five years of monitoring are anticipated, including a minimum of 1 year where precipitation
considered normal, based on a 30 year average. A reduction in monitoring may occur, upon
approval by the regulatory agencies, if well monitoring indicates hydrology requirements have
been achieved during one or more years exhibiting normal precipitation and plant stress /tree
mortality is indicated to be below threshold in the sampling plots.
Plant Stress Monitoring
In order to determine the effect of hydrology restoration on the plant community in the affected
blocks, the Service and DSSP staff will coordinate with CNU Center for Wetlands Study to
monitor plant health at selected sites within the study area. Plant plots will be located within the
reference site and the affected blocks between Corapeake, Kim Saunders, Western Boundary and
South Martha Washington. ditches at the mid -point of each block and 100 feet from the ditches.
Sampling prior to the installation of boards in the water control structures will provide a baseline
for vegetative health, prior to water control. Plant stress monitoring at the plots will occur once
each year for a period of five years, typically July through September. Monitoring will focus on
tree stress and mortality, which is a concern for both the park and refuge staff and regulatory
agencies. Tree stress within one year can be evidenced by color changes, and multiyear. stress
responses can be assessed through Importance Values and Prevalence Indices (Atkinson 2012)

Page 8
Importance values (IV) provide a standard means of characterizing a plant community (Mueller -
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Prevalence index values (PIV), a form of weighted averages, are
useful for assessing wetland status of some vegetation types along a moisture gradient and for
wetland delineation under natural conditions (Atkinson et al. 1993, Atkinson et al. 2005, Scott et
al. 1989). Trees, shrubs, and herbs show various levels of hydrologic stress in response to excess
moisture, and the structure and function of species in wetland habitats indicate flooding, .
groundwater level, soil moisture, and drainage characteristics, as reported for the Great Dismal
Swamp by Day (1979) and Rodgers et al. (2003). Details of the plant stress monitoring protocol
are located in Appendix A.
Timeline
Well Installation – July to September 2012
Construction of Weir 1 (intersection of South Martha Washington and Corapeake Ditches) – July
- September 2012
Construction of Weir 2 (south of Circle/Keyhole Ditch on South Martha Washington Ditch) –
August through December 2012 (contingent upon additional funding)
Installation of boards on Weir 1 – July 2013
Installation of boards on Weir 2 – July 2013
Completion of collection of the first year of well and plant monitoring - September 2013
Submission of first year monitoring report – December 2013
Continued hydrology /plant monitoring 2014 – 2017 *+
Water level adjustments to support rat,,ral rnmm„n;fxr restoration goals 2013 -2017
Cas e number 29
Completion of final monitoring reps_ . Y _ —
*Monitoring may continue after the five year monitoring time period as funding and staffing
allows.
+Adjustments to water control may be required during this monitoring period to ensure success
criteria are met.
Reference Site
The hydrology within the DSSP and GDSNWR has been significantly altered through a system
of drainage ditches and suitable undrained sites are unavailable for reference purposes..
However, a previously drained site which has water control re- established, is proposed as the
reference site for this project. The site, known as block C1, is bisected by the North
Carolina/Virginia state line and is located between Corapeake and Sycamore ditches and
Western Boundary and Myrtle ditches and (Figure 8). Block C -1 contains Pond Pine Woodland
and High Pocosin communities. Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forest is also present in the
reference site, though primarily limited to a fringe adjacent to the ditch margins. The reference
site contains areas mapped as Pine Flat and Drained Depressional Swamp Forest under the
Division of Coastal Management (Figure 6). Wells were installed within C -1 by USGS and
GDSNWR staff in 2009. The Sycamore Ditch to Corapeake Ditch (north to south) transect has
been monitored. since 2009 and will provide reference data for the project (Figure 11). The
hydrology monitoring arrays at this site consist of both piezometers and wells (Figure 12),

Page 9
though for the purposes of this study, though only the well data will be used to maintain
consistency with the monitoring wells installed in the project study area.
Monitoring at this site has already yielded valuable data that has a direct bearing on the project
study area. This monitoring has indicated that there is a relatively rapid response in the water
table aquifer after the placement of boards in water control structures adjacent to the site. The
data has also shown that there is a rapid rise in recharge by precipitation in the water table
aquifer at 100 feet from the ditch, though the water level begins declining almost'immediately at
the end of precipitation (Figure 13). Levels in the water table aquifer and the ditches respond
rapidly to precipitation. The increase in ditch water surface elevation continues for
approximately 24 hours after a precipitation event due to flow from the swamp (Figure 14).
There are diurnal cycles in groundwater levels due to evapotranspiration (ET). At the center of
C -1 there are large declines during the day from high ET rates and "plateaus" with smaller
declines at night from lower ET rates (Figure 15). Water levels in the ditches show a more
uniform decline as water discharges into and from the ditch. (Speiran 2011)
Based on this data collected at the reference site, it is anticipated that when stoplogs are placed in
the two South Martha Washington Ditch water control structures, the ground water aquifer in the
project area, particularly within 100 feet of the ditches, is expected to respond relatively quickly.
The ground water aquifer will also respond during precipitation events, rising quickly, though
begin dropping after cessation of the precipitation event, particularly during the growing season,
when transpiration and evaporation increase significantly.
Success Criteria Case number 30
The DSSP and GDSNWR staffs consider this a research project in addition to a wetland
restoration project, due to the lack of a complete assessment of hydrology within their
boundaries. The focus of the project is to utilize the existing and future monitoring data to
develop management recommendations related to hydrologic and plant community restoration.
Wetland and natural community management will require an adaptive approach, involving
monitoring, analysis, comparison to goals, objectives and success criteria, and refinement of
water level and vegetation management strategies. While it is the long term goal of both DSSP
and GDSNWR to restore the specific community types to historic conditions as much as
practicable, it is likely that for the short term, the increase in duration and/or frequency of
elevated groundwater to provide /sustain wetland hydrology will be the target for this project, as
indicated by the success criteria listed below.
1. Forested areas directly adjacent to South Martha Washington and Corapeake Ditches will
exhibit an increase in ground water elevation of sufficient duration to meet the minimum
regulatory requirement for wetland hydrology restoration during a year exhibiting normal
precipitation. This distance is currently unknown, but is estimated to be a minimum of
100 feet from the ditches.
2. Forested areas outside the zone of direct hydrologic influence from the effects of water
control on South Martha Washington and Corapeake Ditches will exhibit an increased
duration in ground water aquifer elevation over what may currently be sufficient to meet

Page 10
the minimum regulatory requirement for wetland hydrology restoration during a year
exhibiting normal precipitation. This area of influence is also undetermined at this time
but presumed to be from 100 feet to center of ditched "blocks ".
3. No significant mortality of woody vegetation within the plant stress monitoring plots as
compared to mortality within the reference plot *. Significant is defined as 5% or more
difference between restoration and reference plots. Mortality does not include that
caused by fire, windstorm or other natural disasters.
* If plant stress is noted in conjunction with surface inundation during the monitoring
period, DSSP and Service staff will notify the regulatory agencies to determine whether
modifications to water levels at the either structure should be modified to decrease
surface water surface elevation within the ditches and the associated groundwater in the
affected forested areas. One of the goals of this restoration effort is to utilize the water
control structures to adjust water levels to mimic the hydroperiods of the natural
communities in the DSSP and GDSNWR to the extent possible. Therefore, discussion
with the regulatory agencies may include allowing certain species such as red maple, a
species recognized as an opportunistic species which has become dominant in these
communities as a result of the alteration of historic hydrologic conditions, to remain
stressed or exhibit increased mortality over the threshold. Additional treatments within
the areas proposed for hydrologic restoration, including prescribed fire, thinning, and
targeted spraying or species removal may also be undertaken during the monitoring
period, subject to regulatory agency coordination and approval.
Future Management Goals Case number 31
1. Develop long term hydrologic monitoring program within DSSP.
2. Develop stratigraphic mapping of the DSSP assist in assessing subsurface hydrogeologic
conditions.
3. Ensure close coordination with GDSNWR regarding hydrologic and habitat management.
4. Assess long term vegetative response to hydrologic restoration for each wetland
community type present.
5. Develop long range plan for habitat restoration that evaluates the potential for various
treatment scenarios, including natural regeneration, planting /seeding, selective cutting,
selective herbicide treatment and prescribed fire.
6. Measure groundwater and surface water quality parameters, including mercury, carbon
and nitrogen.
7. Assess current soil carbon emission and the potential for carbon, nitrogen and methane
emission at varying soil hydration levels.

Page 11
Priority Natural Community Management Objectives:
Maintain/restore wetland hydrology to Peatland Atlantic White Cedar. Forest (PAW)
natural community.
2. Maintain/restore wetland hydrology to Pine Pond Woodland natural community to
decrease current invasion of red maples /other `drier' woody vegetation.
3. Conduct low intensity burns adjacent to Corapeake Ditch between Western Boundary &
Laurel ditches, the area of potential red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Case number 321.'-NED
JU 16 as
b
Wa Wp
D

Literature Cited
Atkinson, R.B., J.E. Perry, E.P. Smith, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1993. Use of constructed wetland
delineation and weighted averages as a component of assessment. Wetlands 13(2):185-
193.
Atkinson, R.B., J.E. Perry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 2005. Vegetative communities of 20 -year old
created depressional wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13(4):469 -478.
Atkinson, R.B. Personal communication. 2011. Group discussion. December 12, 2011.
Christopher Newport University, Center for Wetland Studies, Newport News, Virginia.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetland and
deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington D.C. FWS /OBS- 79/31.
Day, F.P. 1979. Litter accumulation in four plant communities in the Dismal Swamp, Virginia.
American Midland Naturalist, 102(2):281 -289.
Laing, J.M., T.H. Shear, and F.A. Blazich. 2011. How management strategies have affected
Atlantic White -cedar forest recovery after massive wind damage in the Great Dismal
Swamp. Forest Ecology and Management. 262:1337 -1344.
LeGrand, H.E. 2000. Natural features of Dismal Swamp State Natural Area, North Carolina.
Department of Environment, Case number 33esources, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E., J.O. Fussell, III and W.D. Webster. 2000. Biological inventory of Dismal Swamp
State Park. Pages 41 -50 in R.K. Rose, ed. The natural history of the Great Dismal
Swamp. Proceedings of the third Dismal Swamp symposium, Norfolk, Virginia.
Rodgers, H.L., F.P. Day, and R.B. Atkinson. 2003. Fine root dynamics in two Atlantic white
cedar wetlands with contrasting hydroperiods. Wetlands 23(4):941 -949.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North
Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 320 pp.
Scott, M.L., W.L. Slauson, C.A. Segalquist, and G. T. Auble. 1989. Correspondence between
vegetation and soils in wetlands and nearby uplands. Wetlands 9(1):41 -60.
Speiran, G.K. Great Dismal Swamp hydrology overview I. Powerpoint presentation to the
Dismal Swamp hydrology workgroup, December 12, 2011
Speiran, G.K. Personal communication. R.B. 2011. Group discussion. December 12, 2011. U.S.
Geological Survey, Richmond, Virginia.

Sprecher, S.W. 2000. Installing monitoring wells /piezometers in wetlands. WRAP Technical
Notes Collection. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. ERDCTN - WRAP- 00 -02.
Sutter, L. 1999. DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Marsh and Water Management Plan. Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 258 pages
Wentworth, T.R., G.P. Johnson, and R.L. Kologiski. 1988. Designation of wetlands by weighted
averages of vegetation data: a preliminary evaluation. Water Resources Bulletin
24(2):389 -396.
Wurster, F. and G.K. Speiran. Great Dismal Swamp hydrology overview II. Powerpoint
presentation to the Dismal Swamp hydrology workgroup, December 12, 2011.
Case number 34

'I
M I, - .-- %
, P
/I /to Hovay
~ 84" HOVW
Mddk
a M ffil dand
is
NNWR
'o
C mks,
Mad
NWYR
Virginia
Case number 35
..-NarthCarolina
••••Chnlrl�wr111� Carl
wr
1,1M
�30D
OCAT=110=N MAP
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Dismal
Swamn State Park
Figure 1. Location Map (Service 2006, modified).
/I /to Hovay
~ 84" HOVW

Figure 2. Project Area for South Martha Washington Ditch Restoration.
—:�— 4 ,
— — --x,4-_
'- �. ter- _'" "�'
-,�„- �+` •dr -� •+�`.�:.
D!Y ~'°M'�
_ _ .a>e- .,� �` •,s• �- -� .Y ._-_- _... '�` �- — •,nip -� -'�`-
IN-
-4__ •w
- ,W `� —�" Weir 1
_
V
t-`">i -;� "�
- -- _ -
Weir 2
.
- .Case number 36
v
^:�.
� -{�`
. .1115•- � �(IIdE� `� y@.- .yam.. .,yb.
_�- �• '�h�
_
�� �� ,;�• -�_ _
�"' -�-' _. y �.
-+�- •'1et��- LUu -_. "jY^ '"�0. !�'�
�`
^11'� -...- e.` -••_
w
� -A{P^ � -¢SU' .icy^ _._ ..�yY�
—. -... ._..- -3it -- _. �.. -A, -�-. .AIM_
��
Y
- �"'- --+�M= - w. -�ti
-� -� — srx•- -'"-- -� -aYr� -err '»� �''�'_ '-� �"- _,s,w..xsM. -�•_ - '�1•'` _' � „�-- 1`
.
AL— -0. cur rdir -- a11t
'-�-
-�-'_
_ �...
•• - : -- ->bM- .. - -- -A-
46-
.,._ .yN` ;
-eYM -� _�'.� � ,mow• ;�,.. -
_
-� t� � _ _
DISMAL� aSi�11+4NnyT
7DISMAL
„g
�/�
��I F � � a � ,�•,�
kr-
ILDL.IF
Figure 2. Project Area for South Martha Washington Ditch Restoration.

X41 ii,
t
}
�jti/tlliarTl�
!7, t?rior!1
I am eeder Ditc/r
Late "" Lm
Case number 37l7t�7t 77
South
2
Figure 3. Ditch network within Dismal Swamp State Park and the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge (Service/USGS, 2011)
corapca
a
v�
c�
?
w
—_
Kfrtt at7r�d rs v,
v
H
�
�
�
y
Canal
Cross Canal �y
Cr.
w
mot`
o'
fS.
Figure 3. Ditch network within Dismal Swamp State Park and the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge (Service/USGS, 2011)

N
O
N
O
a
cd
O
N
N
0
U
on
a�
x
bb
x
0
U
z
a
Cd
Q
bh
w

N
O
N
N
U
N
N
bA
N
O
z
Q
0
0
0
:.
w

'�
C
f0
a=+
3
0
U
c
0
L
U
t
O
Z
a�
bn
.�
w

Figure 7. Existing Water Control Structure Location Map (Service 2011)
r A Nan"
y of Suffolk �1.
g City of
Chesapeake
' 1)r.11'l,i.iry
e
� o
D
82dge Mlddh
S
U
WPV,,, r.
�9 fp)l
�`
RdrJrgid �.
Lake .111. _ Drainage Uitc ws
Drummond r,.rdp; Drrch
f."W or ; tom-- A Existing Water Control
Case number ''R rr° 8tructwes
State, Bound"
l.irerdf NO � --- ------ _ —_____
0.5 1 2 Mies
golrlh "Carnfj .
fCmr £aurdo s
r
6 ` f
L
�
k
n
v ss (;any Cross �::ini/
r
r
�o
u.
Figure 7. Existing Water Control Structure Location Map (Service 2011)

Great Dismal Swamp NWR: ,}� T`
' .
Water Control Structures
North m i-;'.;_ >,.
c
a
Z
3h
Willi 50n
roak W' Z aiy forty
H�dnell °J ..
F
h
`a�Pp Rosemary
.rrrr�er No,neast -t
a
0
P °
c�0 C
Camp Fivemi /o
8
aPye
middle
c
wash n9roo oryF.. �yc�� \_ _.
Q a
ailroad
+^ d
Interiors -�= Feeder Desch
Case number 42 1 Block C -1
umber One Y rs' no
Lateral Ditch N b
« 0 0
'outh - - - -- - mor
([� 0
O,
Krn Saunder 3
`y ph 4
N � 9
C1
ss Canal Cross Canal p
cOO o °e e4jleOc
0
r3-' PyJ� ,P�a o•
P `
O
p
O``cr oP94ord h�Rh
e
�a�\acao
Water control structures
Us 158 0 Service/LTSGS wells
0 0.450.9 1.8 Miles O Christopher Newport wells
111111111
Figure 8. Location of Existing Monitoring Wells In Relation to Block C -1
(Service /USGS, 2011)

Figure 9. Proposed Monitoring Well Locations (NCDENR, 2012)

■ 1
Automated well
Center of block
Mucky peat
Tapedown wells
200 and-300 feet
from ditch
Automated well
110 feet from ditch
Figure 10. Cross section through typical restoration block indicating relative location and depth of
monitoring wells
Case number 44

� °� � � �� \ /
� \)� � �:
cn
CD
C4
ZD
PA,
cg
A0,
)
%
�
/
ƒ
�
� \)� � �:
cn
CD
C4
ZD
PA,

a�
a�
U
N
3-a
N
ai
cd
N
�N
G
O
N
N
a
w
N
N
bA
w

W
A
T
E
R 17.5
L
E 17
V
E 16.5
L
16
I
N
15.5
F
E
E 15
T
A 14.5 -
B
0
V 14
E
S 13.5
E
A 13'
L
E 12.5
V 7
E May J
L 2
59A 54 (WATER TABLE AT MYRTLE DITC )
- - -- CUMNJLATIVE PRECIPITATION
59A 56 (SAND AQUIFER AT MYRTLE DIT,'
- 59A 57 (WATER TABLE, 100 FEET FROM
MYRTLE DITCH
--- SYCAMORE DITCH
I P
�p R
Sand Aquifer E
C
17.5
P
Recharge
T
,. Response 15 A
T
J I
• 1 .6 0
N
Precipitation
Myrtle Ditch & 10 I
Nearby Groundwater "
5 T
0
r
arm A
L
Sycamore Ditch
N
2.5 C
H
E
21 28 7 14 21 28 7 14 21 28
July August

w
A
T
E
R 16
L
E
V 15.9
E
L
15.8
N
E 157RECHARGE
T RISE
15.6
A
s
0
V 15.5
E
S
E 15.4
A
L
E 15.3
V 12H 18H OH
E 21
L
.1
i
1
r
1
t
1
II
1
1
1
6H
i P
19h R
E
119.2 0
119 a
- .- ----- %_ v 18.8 T
77 A
.�� T
1'8 6 1
0
1'8.4 H
DITCH AND TOTAL
18.2
WATER -TABLE
ISE FROM FLOW
FROM THE
;WAMP AS THE
QUIFER DRAINS
12H 18H OH 6H
22
August, 2010
59A 59 (WATER TABLE AT
- CUMMULATIVE PRECIPITA i - -
- 59A 57 (WATER TABLE, 1 0 FEET FRUM MYRTLE DITCH)
- -- MYRTLE DITCH
� 4d:46
DRAINS 1'I N
117,8 T
0
17.6 T
A
174 L
12H 18H
23
17.2 H
C
17 H
E
1.6 8 S
12H 18H
23

w
W
A
A
(Tf �i -f i
14.9 T
R14
E
R
:YCAMORE DITCH
L L
- `9A 39 (CENTER)
V 13.9 - .' 9A 30 (100 FEES FROM DITCH) V
E E
ilk 39,430
13.8 14. ,
N J J� N
F F
E E
E 13.7 - 14.6 E
A 9A 3 9 -
B
CJ 13.6 -14.5 14.6 U
V V
E E
S S
E E
A 13.5 - n r }/ yl 14.4 A
E Ditch i.�l. / � E
V V
E 13.4 i i i i i i i 14.3 E
L OH GH 12H 18H 0 GH ien ian OH 6H yen iun L
17 =mum / = . 19

Appendix A. Plant Stress Monitoring Protocol
Vegetation Assessments by Atkinson:
Evaluating Plant Response to Weir Installation
Rationale
Tree stress within one year can be evidenced by color changes, and multiyear stress responses
can be assessed through Importance Values and Prevalence Indices.
Importance values (IV) provide a standard means of characterizing a plant community (Mueller -
Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). Prevalence index values (PIV), a form of weighted averages, are
useful for assessing wetland status of some vegetation types, along a moisture gradient and for
wetland delineation under natural conditions (Atkinson et al. 1993, Atkinson et al. 2005, Scott et
al. 1989). Trees, shrubs, and herbs show various levels of hydrologic stress in response to excess
moisture, and the structure and function of species in wetland habitats indicate flooding,
groundwater level, soil moisture, and drainage characteristics, as reported for the Great Dismal
Swamp by Day (1979) and Rodgers et al. (2003).
Plot Design.
Case number 50
Adjacent to continuous recording wens, I v -m x I v -m piots will be established. Diameter at
breast height will be measured for all tree species (defined as vegetation greater than 3.0 m tall
and greater or equal to 2.54 cm dbh). The sapling /shrub stratum (all vegetation less than 3.0 m
tall, as well as plants that were greater than 0.3 m tall and less than 2.54 cm dbh) will be
measured in one 4 -m x 4 -m nested quadrat. Percent cover of the herbaceous stratum (all
vegetation less than 0.3 m tall or less than 2.54 cm dbh) will be measured in three 1 -m2 nested
quadrats per plot.
Within -year assessment
To quantify stand stress response, visual observation of color change indicators of plant stress
will be assessed for trees at each plot. Results will be reported as percent of trees exhibiting
color change.
Multi -year assessment
Prevalence index values will be calculated using the following formula (Atkinson et al. 1993):
PIV= (YIUI +y2u2 +... +ymUm) /100

where yl,y2,...,ym are the relative cover estimates for each species in the plot, and u1,u2,um is the
indicator status of each species, as found at the USDA Plants Database website (Table 1).
Table 1. Wetland indicator categories of plant species under natural conditions.
Wetland Indicator Estimated Probability of Assigned Indicator
Category Occurrence in Wetlands Status
Obligate Wetland (OBL) Greater than 99% 1
Facultative Wetland (FACW) 67 to 99% 2
Facultative (FAC) 34 to 66% 3
Facultative Upland (FACU) 1 to 33% 4
Obligate Upland (UPL) Less than 1% 5
To quantify stand composition shifts via multi -year trend assessment, MIV will be calculated for
all strata including herbs, shrubs and trees in the four forested stands. Modified importance
values will be calculated as the sum of relative dominance and relative density. MIV will be
converted to relative importance value (RIV), which sums to 100.
MIV= Relative Dominance + Relative Frequency
RIV = MIV
200 Case number 51
Data will be summarized in text and presented in tables.

Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program
ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Installing Monitoring Wells/
Piezometers in Wetlands
PURPOSE: Wetland scientists frequently need quantitative information about shallow ground-
water regimes near wetland boundaries and in adjacent uplands. Monitoring wells and piezometers
are some of the easiest means of determining depth and movement of water tables within and
immediately below the soil profile. Most of the literature on monitoring wells and piezometers,
however, deals with installation to depths greater than needed for wetland regulatory purposes.
This revision of the original 1993 technical note reflects increased experience gained. over several
monitoring years from around the nation in the USDA -NRCS Wet Soils Monitoring project
( http: / /Www.statlab.iastate.edul soils lnssclglobhome.html#project9) and other wetland research ef-
forts.' Significant changes from the original version include:
• Recommending that 15 -in. wells be used to test whether the hydrologic regime meets the
criteria for wetland hydrology.
• Listing documentation needs.
• Eliminating well points except with commercially manufactured, automatic recording
wells.
• Recommending that a Benton, +A hA ,ioaA raAar Aa" grout in the annular space around the
riser and at the ground surfac,Case number 52
• Using filter fabric when installation under water prevents use of a sand pack.
• . Stating explicitly that these procedures are not applicable to soils with low bulk strength
and lateral water flow, such as mucks or peats. If the bentonite seal and sand pack might
interfere with monitoring objectives, procedures described by Cherry et al. (1983) should
be considered.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring wells and piezometers are perforated pipes set vertically in the
ground to intercept the groundwater passively (Figure 1).
Monitoring wells have perforations extending from just below the ground surface to the
bottom of the pipe. Water levels inside the pipe result from the integrated water pressures
along the entire length of perforations.
Piezometers are perforated only at the bottom of the pipe. They are usually installed with
an impermeable bentonite seal above the perforated zone so water cannot flow down the
outside of the pipe. Water levels inside the pipe result from the water pressure over the
narrow zone of perforation at the bottom of the pipe.
The methods described herein do not apply to water - sampling studies. Researchers needing to sample water
from wells should refer to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990); American Society for Testing and Materials
(1990); and Cherry et al. (1983).

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of installed monitoring well and piezometer. A. Shallow monitoring well.
B. Piezometer
Case number 53
Water levels in slotted pipes do not necessarily equate with the actual water table in the undisturbed
soil. Instead, water levels in slotted pipes result from water pressures at the instrument:soil
interface. Consequently, slotted pipes of different lengths can have differing water levels, despite
the fact that they intercept the same body of groundwater. This distinction can be significant if the
body of groundwater is moving upward or downward. If the body of water is moving upward, as
in artesian flow, water pressures are greater at depth and decrease closer to the groundwater surface.
Consequently, water levels will be higher in deep pipes than in shallow ones (Figure 2A).
Conversely, in systems where water moves downward, water levels are lower in deep pipes and
higher in shallow ones (Figure 213).
Recent work in :Illinois has shown that differences between water levels in 12- and 30 -in. -long wells
are on the order of centimeters rather than decimeters or millimeters, t and that these differences are
more pronounced in soils that have been disturbed. Such differences can be significant for wetland
delineation studies at the wetland boundary. See Table 1 for an example of water levels in 15- and
30 -in. wells near the wetland boundary where water is flowing downwards.
Personal Communication, July 2000, James J. Miner, Geologist, Illinois State Geological Stavey, Champaign,
IL.
Vented Cap
IA. Monitoring Well
IB. Piezorneter
Mixture
74-
.
Riser
s
:.
Soil Backfill
12 Bentonite Seal
Well Screen
1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of installed monitoring well and piezometer. A. Shallow monitoring well.
B. Piezometer
Case number 53
Water levels in slotted pipes do not necessarily equate with the actual water table in the undisturbed
soil. Instead, water levels in slotted pipes result from water pressures at the instrument:soil
interface. Consequently, slotted pipes of different lengths can have differing water levels, despite
the fact that they intercept the same body of groundwater. This distinction can be significant if the
body of groundwater is moving upward or downward. If the body of water is moving upward, as
in artesian flow, water pressures are greater at depth and decrease closer to the groundwater surface.
Consequently, water levels will be higher in deep pipes than in shallow ones (Figure 2A).
Conversely, in systems where water moves downward, water levels are lower in deep pipes and
higher in shallow ones (Figure 213).
Recent work in :Illinois has shown that differences between water levels in 12- and 30 -in. -long wells
are on the order of centimeters rather than decimeters or millimeters, t and that these differences are
more pronounced in soils that have been disturbed. Such differences can be significant for wetland
delineation studies at the wetland boundary. See Table 1 for an example of water levels in 15- and
30 -in. wells near the wetland boundary where water is flowing downwards.
Personal Communication, July 2000, James J. Miner, Geologist, Illinois State Geological Stavey, Champaign,
IL.

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Figure 2. Example of water levels in piezometers. A. Water tables rising from below (artesian or
discharge system). B. Water tables dropping from above (recharge system)
Table 1
Example of Water Well Readings in Shallow and Deep Wells with Downward Water Flow
Depth of Slotted Screen
--
Water Lev ' ' " "3ove Critical Depth for Wetland Hydrology?
Case number 54
15 -in. well
11 in. Yes
30 -in. well
13 in.
No
These two wells are probably measuring hydrostatic pressures in the same body of groundwater.
The net flow is downward. Assume that the data from either of these two wells were used alone to
assess whether wetland hydrology criteria were met. Using the deep well, the evaluator would have
to tally the data as being below the 12 -in. threshold for wetland hydrology; using the shallow well,
however, the evaluator would have to tally the data as being above the 12 -in. threshold. The 2 -in.
(5 -cm) difference is within the range of actual differences found in the field.
In borderline situations such as this, 15 -in. wells should be included in the study design unless
differences between readings in shallow and deep wells are smaller than the precision of data
interpretation. In Table 1, the shallow wells are redundant to the deep wells if water levels are
interpreted with a precision of± 2 in. However, if water levels are interpreted with greater precision,
the shallow wells provide important additional information.
SELECTING INSTRUMENTATION: It is vital to define study objectives before buying and
installing instruments in order to avoid gathering unnecessary or meaningless data. Common study
purposes are wetland determination, wetland delineation, determination of whether a wetland is a
recharge or discharge system, and determination of water flow paths in the landscape.

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Wetland Determination. When determining whether criteria for wetland hydrology or hydric
soils are met at a point on the landscape, there are usually three objectives. Table 2 summarizes
the instruments required for three different scenarios.
Table 2
Water Table Monitoring Objectives and Instrumentation for Three Scenarios of Perching
I-
Instrument
Scenario 2: Shallow
Scenario 1: Degree of
Water Table Perched
Perching Uncertain;
within Depth of
Scenario 3: Shallow,
Discharge or Recharge
Monitoring
Static Water Table or
Systems
(e.g., soils w /clay
Water now is Lateral
(e.g., most wetland
textures throughout or
(e.g., tidal marsh or
Objective
fringes)
clay -rich horizons)
flow- through wetland)
Objective 1: Determine
15 -in. well
15 -in. well
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
48 in.
tables are shallower than
threshold depths for
wetland criteria
Objective 2: Determine
Well to greatest depth of
Well to top of perching
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest; install well to top
zone
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
of perching layer if
48 in.
tables are near threshold
perching is proven
depths for wetland criteria
Objective 3: Determine
Well to greatPs;t dPnth of
PiP7nmPtPrs within and
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest, usuCase number
55:rmeable layer
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
48 in.; per Scenario 2 if
48 in.
tables are considerably
perching is proven
deeper than critical depths
Summary of Instruments
15-in. well and deep well
15 -in. well and
One deep well; if soil is
piezometers in and below
unconsolidated, consider
perching zone
methods of Cherry et al.
— — —
(1983) - -
For Scenario I (Table 2), both 15 -in. and deep wells should be installed unless local experience
indicates that the shallow ones provide no additional information. The financial stakes of most
regulatory investigations will usually be much greater than the very small additional investment of
time and money needed to install, read, and maintain the shorter wells. If it is documented that a
single deep instrument will meet all three objectives (Table 2), the shallower instruments can be
dispensed with. It may not be necessary to install both shallow and deep wells at every monitoring
station around a wetland. The number and depths of deep and shallow wells should be determined
beforehand by all parties involved in the project to avoid later contention.
When installing very shallow monitoring wells, be aware of their physical instability. Shallow
wells may need to be reinstalled more frequently than deeper ones.
4

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Wetland Delineation. To identify the location of the boundary between wetlands and non -wet-
lands, install sets'of instruments along transects perpendicular to the expected wetland boundary.
The same combinations of instruments that were recommended for wetland determination should
be installed at each point along the transect. Shallow wells can be dispensed with in obvious
wetlands and in obvious non - wetlands, but usually they are necessary close to the wetland boundary.
Recharge Versus Discharge Determination. Sets of piezometers at different depths are
needed to determine direction of water flow (upward or downward) at any point in a wetland (Fig-
ure 2). The exact depths of piezometers will vary from site to site, depending on stratigraphy and
topographic position. In soils with large differences in permeability, piezometers should be placed
on top of, within, and below suspected perching layers. to test whether the suspect layers actually
impede water flow. Unusually permeable layers, such as sand lenses, should always be instru-
mented.
Determine Water Flow Paths in a Landscape. Sets of piezometers are located both up- and
down - gradient along suspected water flow paths (Warne and Smith 1995).
CONSTRUCTION OF PIEZOMETERS AND SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS
Well Stock. Shallow monitoring instruments should be made from commercially manufactured
well stock. Schedule 40, 1 -in.-diam PVC pipe is recommended. This diameterpipe allows sufficient
room for sampling while minimizing sampling volume and size of bentonite seal in the bore hole.
Larger diameter pipes can be substituted when needed, as with automated samplers.
Case number 56
Well Screen. Use 0.010 -in. -wide (see section on sand pack below). For
����� _X_ �., -�., �u.�..
shallow wells, the slotted screen should extend from approximately half a foot below the ground
surface down to the bottom of the well (Figure IA). For piezometers, the well screen is usually the
bottom 6 in. of the pipe (Figure 1 B).
One problem with use of commercial well screen for very shallow monitoring wells and piezometers
is that there often is a length. of unslotted pipe and joint or threads below the screen. In shallow
monitoring situations this extra length often must be extended into an underlying soil horizon that
should be left undisturbed. In combination with a commercial well point, this extra length also
provides a reservoir where water can remain trapped after the outside groundwater has dropped,
making readings difficult to interpret during water table drawdown. To avoid these problems, cut
commercial well screen to the desired length within the slotted portion of the pipe (Miner and Simon
1997). Glue a PVC cap at the bottom of the screen and drill a small vent hole in the bottom cap
(Figure 3).
Riser. The riser is the unslotted PVC pipe that extends from the top of the well screen to above
the ground surface (Figure 1). The riser should extend far enough above ground to allow easy access
but not so high that the leverage of normal handling will break below- ground seals. Nine to twelve
inches is usually sufficient. A greater length of riser above the ground may be needed on sites that
are inundated regularly or where automatic recording devices are used.

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
A
B
Internals
Threads
"' -�--- Screen
Vent Hole
Case number 57
Figure 3. Modified commercial well screen. A. Commercial well screen with threads at both top and
bottom. B. Screen after sawing lower threaded portion of pipe off and closing with vented
PVC plug
Well Cap. Well caps protect wells from contamination and rainfall. Caps need to be attached
loosely enough that they can be removed without jostling the riser. Well caps can be constructed
from PVC pipe as shown in Figure 4. The homemade cap can be attached to the riser by drilling a
hole through both the cap and the riser and connecting the two with a wire lock pin. Well caps
should be made of materials that will not deteriorate in sunlight or frost.
A common problem with commercially made well caps (threaded or unthreaded) is that the cap
may seize to the riser and require rough handling to remove. This is likely to break the seal between
the riser and the ground, especially in shallow wells. If commercially made well caps are used,
they should be modified to prevent such snug fits. All caps should be vented to allow equilibration
of air pressure inside and outside of the riser.

Glue Together
WlPVC Glue
Figure 4. Homemade cap made from oversize PVC piping
Case number 58
ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
•- 2 " PCV Cap
- 2 " PVC Pipe
Well Point. Commercial PVC well points are not needed if the bottom of the screen is capped. A
PVC cap glued on the bottom of the slotted portion of the screen keeps out sand and has the
advantage of being shorter than most commercial well points (Figure 3).
Sand Pack. Sand is placed around the slotted interval to filter out silts and clays (Figure 1). Silica
sand is available from water -well supply houses in uniformly graded sizes. Sand that passes a
20 -mesh screen and is retained by a 40 -mesh screen (20 -40 sand) is recommended with 0.010 -in.
well screen; finer sized 40 -60 grade sand is appropriate for use with 0.006 -in. screen. The finer sand
and screen should be used to pack instruments in dispersive soils with silt and fine silt loam textures.
The sand pack may need to be dispensed with in permanently saturated soils that have little strength,
such as peats or mucks. The methods of Cherry et al. (1983) should be used in such situations.
Sand packs and bentonite simply slough down the sides of the pipe and into the surrounding snuck
in such soils.t
Bentonite Sealant. Bentonite is a clay that absorbs large quantities of water and swells when
wetted. It is used in well installation to form a tight seal around the riser to prevent water from
running down the pipe to the well screen. With this protective plug, only groundwater enters the
slotted well screen.
Personnal Colmnunication, 2000, D. L. Siegel, Syracuse University.

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Four inches of bentonite are placed around the riser immediately below the ground surface when
installing either monitoring wells or piezometers (Figures I and 1B). This 4 -in. ring of bentonite
rests directly on top of the sand pack around the well screen for monitoring wells, and rests on top
of the backfill of soil tamped into the annular space of the auger hole for piezometers. The top of
the bentonite plug should be shaped to slope away from the riser so that water will run away from
the pipe rather than pond around it at the ground surface.
A minimum of 12 in. of bentonite clay is placed around piezometers above the sand filter as a sealant
(Figure 1B). This prevents water flow along the sides of the pipe from the ground surface and
through channels leading to the pipe. It is critical that piezometers have an effective bentonite seal
above the sand pack in layered or structured soils.
Bentonite is available from well - drilling supply companies in either powder, chip, or pellet form.
Chips or pellets are easier to use in the field than powder. They can be dropped directly down the
annular space above the sand filter and gently tamped into place. If this zone is already saturated
with water, the chips will absorb water in place, swell tight, and seal off the sand filter from the
annular space above. If the bentonite chips are dropped into a dry annular space, they should be
packed dry and water should be added down the annular space so the clay can swell shut.
Cracks are inevitable in clayey soils with high shrink -swell activity. In these soils three piezometers
should be installed as replicates for each depth of instrumentation. If readings are questionable,
move some yards away from the instrument site, auger to the depth in question, and evaluate whether
free water is present at the depth of the well screen.
Filter Socks. Filter socks are tubeCase number 59ic that can be slipped over the screened
end of a well to filter out silt and clay particles. They are not necessary if a sand pack is used and
the pipe is capped at the bottom. Filter socks are recommended only when it is unpractical to install
a sand pack, such as in permanently saturated organic soils. Filter socks are available from
engineering and water -well supply houses.
INSTALLATION OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERS
Soil Profile Description. The soil profile must be described and evaluated before installation
of an instrument in order to identify strata that can alter vertical and horizontal water flows. Profile
descriptions should include horizon depths and information about texture, induration, bulk density,
redoximorphic features, and roots, so that significant differences in permeability can be inferred
(Figure 5). Once potential aquitard horizons have been identified in the soil, appropriate lengths
and depths of well screen can be determined. The importance of onsite soil characterization to
determine the appropriate well depths cannot be overemphasized.
Several soil characteristics may indicate that vertical water flow is impeded and that perched water
tables exist. Features to watch for include the following:
Sudden change from many roots to few or no roots.
Sudden change in sand or clay content.
Sudden change in ease of excavation.
E-3

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Soil Features' Used to Ide tify Horizons with Different Permeabilities
Horizon Depths
Matrix Color
Texture
Redoximorphic Features
Structure
Consistence
Induration
none, weak, strop
Roots
Soil Survey Division Staff (1993).
Figure 5. Sample soil characterization form
• Sudden change in water content, such as presence of saturated soil horizons immediately
above soil horizons that are dry or barely moist.
• Redoximorphic features at any of the distinct boundaries listed above.
Installation of Shallow Monitoring Wells (Figure 1A).
1. Auger a hole in the ground with a 3 -in. bucket auger to a depth approximately 2 in.
deeper than the bottom of the well. Be sure the auger hole is vertical.
2. Scarify the sides of the auger hole if it was smeared during augering.
3. Place 2 in. of silica sand in the bottom of the hole.
4. Insert the well into the rnla Nia not tlhrnnah thP, sand
Case number 60
Pour and gently tamp more of the same sand in the annular space around the screen and
2 in. above the screen.
6. Pour and gently tamp bentonite above the sand to the ground surface. Shape the surface
of this plug so that water will not pond around the riser.
7. Form a mound of a soil /bentonite mixture at the top of the ground around the base of
the riser to direct surface water flow away from the pipe.
Piezometers. Installation of a piezometer entails the same steps as above, with the modifications
that 12 in. of bentonite are placed above the sand pack and water is added to expand the clay and
form a seal (Figure 1B). Backfill and tamp soil into the auger hole from the top of the bentonite
plug to within 4 in. of the soil surface. Place a second plug of bentonite at the ground surface per
Instruction 6 immediately above.
Equipment. Equipment needs vary with depth and diameter of instruments to be installed. This
list of equipment is sufficient to install monitoring wells and standard piezometers to 10 ft or
shallower.
Bucket auger 2 in. wider than the OD of the pipe being installed
Auger extensions
M

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Pipe wrenches for auger extensions
Color book and soil description forms
Piezorneter or well
Water level reading device (see below)
Tamping tool (0.5 -in. -thick lath works well to 4 ft; 0.5- in. -diam metal pipe for greater
depths)
Bentonite chips
Commercial grade silica sand
Steel tape long enough to measure deepest hole
Paint marker to label pipes
Hand pump to pump water from well and check for clogging
Survey equipment of sufficient accuracy to measure elevations required for study purposes
Checking for Clogged Pipes. After the pipe has been installed, either pump the well dry and
monitor how quickly water levels return to the pre - pumped level; or if the pipe is dry, fill it with
water and monitor rate of outflow. Water levels in wells should return at approximately the same
rate as they would in freshly dug holes without any pipe. If water levels do not return to pre - pumped
levels, pull the instrument out and determine why it is plugged. This test should be performed every
few months throughout the study, because wells can plug due to bacterial growth as well as slumping
of dispersive soil.
Elevations. Most methods of determining water levels in pipes entail measurement from the top
of the riser to the water surface in the pipe. Therefore, a correction must be made for the difference
between riser elevation and ground r' °- TV.,t. A. „1,.° -,tives require comparing water levels in
different pipes, then relative elevatiuCdSe number y 61�o be surveyed in.
Record the height of the riser above the ground surface at the time of installation and every few
months thereafter. Pipes tend to move upward during cycles of wetting and drying. If marking the
side of the pipe for fiiture reference, use a paint marker; paint lasts longer than permanent marking
ink.
Foot Traffic from Study Personnel. Microtopography and shallow soil properties can be
altered in wetlands when foot paths are worn into the ground during the wet season. This can even
puddle the soil around a shallow well if it is visited numerous times when saturated. It may be
necessary to install boardwalks between instruments at long -term study sites.
Concrete Pads. Some localities require that monitoring wells be installed with concrete pads to
protect drinking water sources from surface runoff. Local regulations should be observed at all sites.
Concrete pads should not be used with shallow monitoring wells because pads of the required size
probably interfere with water infiltration into the soil immediately around the shallow well.
Vandalism. Vandalism often cannot be avoided. Three approaches to the problem are (1) to hide
the wells, (2) to armor them, or (3) to post them with identifying signs. All three approaches have
worked in different conununities. Pipes cannot be protected in all situations. Extra wells, installation.
equipment, and accessories should be brought along on monitoring trips so that vandalized
instruments can be replaced.
10

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
READING WATER LEVELS: Water levels can be read with a steel measuring tape marked with
a water - soluble marker. The only equipment needed is the tape, marker, and a rag to wipe the tape
dry after each reading. Height of riser above the ground surface should be noted every time the
instrument is read because pipes may move as much as 3 in. in a season.
One commonly used device (pair of wires, battery, open electric junction, and light or meter) is an
open electric circuit that is completed when the junction makes contact with water. If using such a
device, be aware that flexible wire will give a less accurate measurement than a rigid tape. Do not
read water levels with a dowel stick because of the large displacement of the volume of the dowel.
Frequency of reading will depend on study purposes and rate of water table _fluctuation. Water levels
should be checked weekly or more often during the season of high water tables. More frequent
readings may be needed in flashy systems, such as sandy floodplains of small streams or tidal areas.
For long -term studies it usually suffices to collect data every other week during most of the year
and every week to every day during water table rise or drawdown.
Automatic recording devices record water levels with down -well transducers or capacitance -based
sensors. These cost much more than manually read instruments but may be necessary for some
studies. Because automatic devices may be reused for several projects, cost estimates should be
prorated over their expected life rather than assigned only to one study. Automatic recorders may
be less expensive than travel costs and salaries if study objectives require frequent readings at remote
sites. The credibility of monitoring results is enhanced by the high frequency of readings allowed
by automatic wells. Automatic water -level recorders should be checked every few months and
recalibrated as necessary.
Case number 62
Documentation. The form in Figure 6 solicits information necessary to document study design
in most wetland regulatory situations. Figure 7 can be used when reading water levels manually.
Figure 8 provides one possible format for reporting water levels, soil profile, growing season dates,
and precipitation data in one graph. An effort should be made to acquire precipitation data from
nearby weather stations and interpret the data with respect to long -terin ranges of normal (Sprecher
and Warne 2000).
POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact Steven W. Sprecher, USACE
Detroit District, South Bend Field Office, 2422 Viridian Drive, Suite 101, South Bend, IN 46628
(219- 232 -1952) or the Manager of the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Dr. Russell F.
Theriot (601- 634 -2733, therior a wes.army.mil). This technical note should be cited as follows:
Sprecher, S. W. (2000). "Installing monitoring wells /piezometers in wetlands," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN- WRAP- 00 -02), U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil /el /wrap
M

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Installation Data Sheet
Project Name Alpha Project Date of Installation 919199
Project Location Beta Place Personnel J Doe
Well Identification Code A -15 JB1oe
Attach map of project, showing well locations and significant topographic and hydrologic features.
As appropriate, attach map of well site, showing locations and ground elevations of all instruments and
microtopographic features of significance, with respect to reference datum.
Type of Instrument
Source of instrument / well stock Acme Well Company
Material of well stock Schedule 40 PVC Diameter of pipe 1 inch
Slot size 0.010 inch Slot spacing 0.5
inch
Kind of well cap homemade PVC w /vent Kind of end plug I" plug. vented
Nature of Installation Materials
Nature of packing sand 20 -40 silica Kind of bentonite chips
Nature of backfill bentonite /soil mix Depth of backfill 6 in to ground surface
Was bentonite installed below groundwater depth at installation? NA
Was water added to bentonite for expansion? NA
Method of measuring water levels in instrument steel tape and soluble marker
How was instrument checked for clogging after installation? Water poured down well and drainage
monitored. No water standing in well after 20 minutes.
tnstrumant Diaoram Soil Characteristics
riser + 9
Texture
Structure
Roots
Consis-
Redox Features
tense
o°
silt loam
strong
many
very
none
bentonite
soil a „
granular
medium
friable
backfill 6., Case
number
63
slotted -
silt
weak
common
friable
2.5Y511 matrix
screen
sub- angular
common Fe-
blocky
concentrations
sand —15
pack
" 177
16
silty clay
moderate
few Ane
very
10YR 411
—3 � �
loam
blocky
Arm
matrix
many Fe-
concentrations
& depletions
36 "
silty clay
weak
very
10YR 511
loam
sub- angular
Arm
matrix
blocky
common Fe-
concentrations
& depletions
Show depths (heights) of soil horizons, riser, screen, sand pack, bentonite, backfill, mound, etc.
A. Example filled out
Figure 6. Sample installation data form (Continued)
12

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
Installation Data Sheet
Project Name Date of Installation
Project Location Personnel
Well Identification Code
Attach map of project, showing well locations and significant topographic and hydrologic features.
Attach map of well site, showing locations and ground elevations of all instruments and microtopographic
features of significance, with respect to reference datum.
Type of Instrument
Source of instrument / well stock
Material of well stock Diameter of pipe _
Slot size Slot spacing
Kind of well cap Kind of well point / end plug
Nature of Installation Materials
Nature of packing sand Kind of bentonite
Nature of backfill Depth of backfill
Was bentonite installed below groundwater depth at installation?
Was water added to bentonite for expansion?
Method of measuring water levels in instrument
How was instrument checked for clogging after installation?
Instrument Diagram
Soil Characteristics
Case
Texture
Structure
Roots
Consis-
Tence
Redox
Features
number
64
Show depths (heights) of soil horizons, riser, screen, sand pack, bentonite, backfill, etc.
B. Blank master
Figure 6. (Concluded)
13

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
14
a
L
0
a�
N
L
Q
a
b
x
v
A- u
C �
o �
U U
d
.a 3
" E
c
E '�
o �
U >
'n
Case
number
65
y
0
a�
a
V
CJ P:
m
ro
i
O �O
V
V
.a
� O
Q w`
c
o
o C7
CL
�
O
x¢
H
Q
b
0
14
a
L
0
a�
N
L
Q
a
b
x
v
A- u
C �
o �
U U
d
.a 3
" E
c
E '�
o �
U >
'n
Case
number
65
y
V
CJ P:
i
O �O
� O
Q w`
c
o
o C7
�
O
x¢
H
Q
14
a
L
0
a�
N
L
Q

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
15
0
7Z-D
0)
a)
0
Cl.
W
CL
E
w
(0
c6
U-
... ........
. . ......
I
q
0
z
. .. ..
.....
............
0
1
M,
.
U)
.. .. ....... ...............
............
. .. . ..
. ..... . . .....
1 U7
0
(D
. .... .....
.. .
... ...... .. . . . ..........
M
U)
.
. ...... ..
cu
E
Case
number 66
E
O
t
r=
9 t
-2
co
----------
z
U-
...........
.6
CL
I
0
. .........
............... ...
. . ... ... ...... ...............
.
t
co
CO
It
N
cr)
(So4oul) uojjqjd1n8Jd
(109}) 41doa
IDA81 J4010M Goepint/punoig
:3
0
Q
Cc i'�
E
0
w
_R
3:
—
c (D
2
Ej
E,
1E : E E
E
C1.
E
r M
�2
'Ho
X
2
05
01,
Lij
E
tr
as
fj
0
>
LL
15
0
7Z-D
0)
a)
0
Cl.
W
CL
E
w
(0
c6
U-

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
16
U
C
U
06
t..
7
CA
0
I
'r
O
'
Q
m
-
rn
c
I
i
;
i
�
I
,
i
!
CL
Q
Case number
67_y__
Q
a
Q
a
�
U-
o
CD
I
CD �Y N r O
(sayou;) uone7ld;osM
N M
P (1ae3) 4�deQ
OW
)eea-) je3eM eoejang/punojE)
'd
N
a
o
�
m
a
y
c
E
o
o
T
CC
C
a
O
0.
C
0
_
@ F �
S' > Z 1i
m
019 y
OS2 D
m
16
U
C
U
06
t..
7
CA
0

ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
July 2000
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1990). "Standard practice for design and installation of ground water
monitoring wells in aquifers," Designation: D5092 -90, Philadelphia, PA.
Cherry, J. A., Gillham, R. W., Anderson, E. G., and Johnson, P. E. (1983). "Migration of contaminants in groundwater
at a landfill: A case study: 2. Groundwater monitoring devises," J. Qf'Hydrology 63, 31 -49.
Miner, J. J., and Simon, S. D. (1997). "A simplified soil -zone monitoring well," Restoration and Manageinenl Notes
15(2), 156 -160.
Sprecher, S. W., and Warne, A. G. (2000). "Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland hydrology,''
ERDC /EL TR- WRAP -00 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Warne, A. G., and Smith, L. H. (1995). "Framework for wetland systems management. Earth resources perspective, "
WRP Technical Report WRP- SM -12, U.S. Anny Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1990). "Monitor well installation at hazardous and toxic waste sites," Engineer
Circular 1110- 7- 1(FR), Washington, DC,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allcr, L., Bennett, T. W., Hackett, G., Petty, R. J., Lehr, J. H., Sedoris, H., and Nielsen, D. M. (1990). Handbook o/'
suggested practices for the design and installation of ground - water monitoring n,ells. National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OR
Driscoll, F. (1986). Grom7d crater and wells. Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN.
Gamble, E. E., and Calhoun, T. E. (1979). "Methods of installing piezometers for soil moisture investigations,"
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, unpublished technical note.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 11975) "Manual of water well construction practices," Office of Water
Supply, EPA - 570/9 -75 -001. Case number 68
NOTE: The contents of this technical note are not to be used for advertising, publication,
or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorse-
ment or approval of the use of such products.
fV